User talk:ST47/Archive19

My Talk Page

My Contributions

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Lil Nas X. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The guy again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.144.211.166 {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Hello, I'm Χϻας. I am sorry for the disruptive editing, as I was very upset because I asked for help and nobody replied to me. I just wanted somebody to give me help so I could move on. Please give me help. Thank you. {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

It's already been requested, but could you please protect Louis XVII of France? RIDICULOUS amounts of IP vandalism after recent expiration of semi-protection for that very reason. ThanToBe (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to an identical request. Favonian (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GHBH, possibly? I'd honestly rather not protect them. Eventually they're going to run out of public wi-fi hotspots in the Louisville, KY area. ST47 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The ghurids ( debated as in the article) and khaljis (turk o afghan as in the article) should also be mentioned before lodhi dynasty in the article. hope you do something about it. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.22.22 (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, you are one of those guys that gets a thrill out of following up on peoples edits and telling them how what they are doing is wrong and not policy. This is about to become a big story, partially because it is all true and several Ukranian media outlets are currently looking into it. Please undo your Zwarycz change for a few days, you can come back and be all retentive about it at the end of the week. But everything that I have posted is in fact true, you do know that there was a time before the internet, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.153.27.101 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the spillover of the AfD into the AfD talk, the canvassed new users are now adding votes to Talk:Chinazi. This will probably continue for quite a while.

At what point (if any) does semi-protection of the talk page become warranted? — MarkH21 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see for now, hopefully it dies down on its own. The semi-protection slowed it down a lot, and at least the people commenting on the talk page aren't screwing up the formatting of the AfD page. If we keep seeing the edit requests being placed, we can semi the AfD talk page too. I'm not worried about simple comments, as they're easy to ignore.

I don't know if I've ever seen that much of a flood of canvassed AfD comments before... ST47 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be coming in at the AfD talk page a pretty steady rate. I'm curious - is semi-protecting the actual article's talk page merited at a certain point? I definitely have never seen an AfD canvassing flood this large before! — MarkH21 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now, the two talk pages are just becoming soapboxes. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be protected. But for now there's no problem on the article talk page, and unless it graduates to actually being disruptive editing, it probably is not necessary to semi-protect. And it may only send the commenters to some other venue. Let's give it a few hours for the social media storm to die off, and see where that leaves us. ST47 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the flood on the AfD talk page is harmless and it serves as a escape valve for the mob. I am more worried about the discussion on more sophisticated disruption that is being coordinated in that forum, with confirmed users chipping in, and even someone who claims to be an experienced editor (account undisclosed). Protection will not help in that case, we we'll just need to be aware of the situation. --MarioGom (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear some of the editors on this AfD have been acting on directions on gaming Wikipedia to get autoconfirmed status. Which isn't, you know, hard or anything, but is a bit disconcerting when their userpages literally contain the text "Autoconfirmed?". There has also been a bit of "Chinazi" vandalism on HK protest related pages. As I've been saying for some time, increased edit restrictions on HK protest related pages would really be to the benefit of the project; but beyond that I'm not sure there's much to be done. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as far as I know, it would take an Arbcom case for that to happen. Please do use {{spa}} and/or {{canvassed}} (for non-SPAs but accounts that were inactive for a long time before returning to edit this AfD) as needed for the AfD. I believe the 4 day requirement for autoconfirmed works in our favor here, as long as the AfD is able to be closed after 7 days and does not require relisting, so the only canvassing should be old accounts that people already had, not new sockpuppets created for the purpose of this AfD. ST47 (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted some additions to Roman Zvarych and hid them from the page's history. Can you take a look and see if today's edits by 81.144.142.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) require the same treatment? And maybe the page needs to be semi-protected. Thank you. Peacock (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PCock:, thanks for the message. The IP users are adding accusations in violation of WP:BLP along with sources that do not support the accusations. I will indeed revert/revdel/protect/block. ST47 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47! I noticed that one of your edits made with Huggle was a false positive: this revert on Unbelievable (miniseries) is incorrect because (a) the IP added the correct name of an actor / recurring significant character; and (b) the casting is sourced implicitly to the credits of the primary source — note that the rest of the section doesn't have an inline citation. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bilorv! It read to me as a possible hoax/self-insert because it was unsourced, and because they were adding the new name to the top of the list. I'll make sure to do some more investigation if that sort of thing comes up again. Thanks for the message! ST47 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Thank you for being prepared to close this AfD. On numbers, then merge/redirect would be the consensus. However, on the arguments, which is what counts, the situation is different. None of the merge/redirect commentators advanced any policy based arguments for their proposed actions and no-one has addressed the three reasons I advanced against this action. Therefore, I should be grateful if you would be willing to look again at your close. Thank you. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the message. To respond to the points you raised: redirecting to an article where the subject is not mentioned should always be avoided as it simply annoys the reader who spends time searching the target in vain I see your point, but I would direct you to WP:R#KEEP and especially points 2 and 5, and note that this is not an example of WP:R#DELETE point 10, as I think we agree that these redirects could not plausibly be expanded into an article. we should avoid merging unsourced material and the only source that I can find that looks in any way reliable is here I think these can be answered in the same way: if the stadium articles have no more useful material that is not already in the parent article, then there is nothing more to merge, and we can move on to redirecting them. ST47 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response and I apologize for intruding into your talk page again. However, I think that the killer argument (in my humble view anyway), is a failure of WP:V which cannot be tolerated even for a redirect. Only one of the pages had a link and that one, a list of stadiums in Thailand, doesn't mention any of these stadia (unless I have missed them - always possible!). I have had a good look and simply can't find a reliable source for any of these stadia. Unless each stadium can be backed up by a reliable source then deletion, on the grounds of failing WP:V, is the only option. IMHO. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't generally a requirement to provide a source on a redirect page itself. Now, you could argue that (for example) Samut Prakan United F.C. fails to provide a reference for the fact that that club has played at Samut Prakan United Stadium, and you would be right because Samut Prakan United F.C. fails to cite any sources at all. I think it's pretty likely that some sources do exist to establish the notability of the club and the existence of their stadium, however, if you disagree, I think an AfD on the club would be in order, or an RfD on the redirects. I don't think either is likely to succeed, but that is where you'd have to make this argument - I'm quite confident that the consensus at the present AfD was not to delete, and there is no argument for speedy deletion either. ST47 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask you, as an uninvolved experienced editor (and admin), about the conduct surrounding a content dispute.

Background: After an editor re-reverted and ignored previous revert edit summaries at Kate Dover, I started a discussion to resolve the content dispute. After that was clearly going nowhere, I opened a 3-point RfC.

RfC activity: The editor eventually acquiesced on point 1 due to consensus from other editors on the RfC, and then declared that they would work on the article in their userspace so the RfC would be meaningless for the time being. After the "update" was complete, the editor then declared the RfC meaningless because the article had changed. I updated point 3 to the new status, on which I still disagreed with the state of the article, and I still disagreed with the state of point 2.

I asked for the RfC to remain open to garner additional input and hopefully a consensus with other editors (we were the only two editors to have discussed points 2 & 3 of the RfC). The editor then unilaterally decided to close the RfC despite my objection.

Now, I could not find anything in the procedure for closing RfCs directly opposing this behavior, but surely that isn't acceptable. We were the only two editors to have discussed the remaining parts of the RfC and were in clear opposition to each other. I asked for the RfC to remain open so other editors could chime in.

Question: Can an editor decide to just close the RfC despite opposition to closing it? — MarkH21 (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21:, the only circumstances where one of the participants in an RfC should close it would be if there was a near unanimous agreement to do so. If there is still some unsettled question, the RfC should be closed by an uninvolved editor. I will restore the {{rfc}} tag. Generally the RfC would continue until the participants reach a consensus on their own, until discussion peters out and the bot automatically removes the {{rfc}} tag and no participant restores it, or until it is closed by an uninvolved editor. You could request someone to close it at WP:ANRFC, but I don't think there is enough input yet on questions 2 and 3 of the RfC for them to make a useful judgement. ST47 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful response! That’s what I figured, but I felt that restoring the tag myself wouldn’t have been productive and led to more “intimidation through rules” claims. I agree, currently we are the only two editors to comment on questions 2 & 3 so hopefully some additional input will result from this. Anyways, thanks again! — MarkH21 (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Lovely filter that stops Nate right in his tracks! Keep up the good work! :) IanDBeacon (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! It's far from a perfect solution, or someone would have done this before - but all it has to to is slow him down enough to get blocked :) ST47 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take the AFD off of the article for DJ DX? Someone on Instagram made it a personal situation by coming here to spread hatred of an opinion that has nothing to do with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylstarz (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinylstarz: No. You're welcome to make your argument - based on our WP:NOTABILITY policy - in the AfD itself. The tag will not be removed until the debate has been closed, after a minimum of one week, or longer if necessary in order to come to a conclusion. And the person who opened the AfD is an experienced contributor, not "someone on Instagram". ST47 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The vandal return. Sockpuppet User:GARY_809 and User:AH999 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.145.161.106 / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.151.92.145 / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.151.92.244 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcbjuvenil (talk • contribs)

Hi! I've blocked Special:Contributions/109.145.161.106 for a bit, that seems to be the current IP that they are on. ST47 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, again, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HSV1887 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcbjuvenil (talk • contribs)

Whats your problem. You are the vandal. He's deleting players with games in the league and the champions league. They are all on the Squad on the La Liga website. Wikipedia does not work with just one source! The barcelona website is just not updated or they have another pov. They are regular squad members. Stop this bullshit! I explained it 2-3 times now. Perez is in both squads. And I don't know who GARY_809 and AH999 are. I'm a German and just did a few edits in en:WP. --HSV1887 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona official website, Peña, Pérez e Fati was not the first team: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players They are registered with team B: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/barca-b/players -- FCBjuvenil (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You are German, I am Spanish. You do not know the rule of Spain. Shirt 1-25 are main team players. Above that, they are from team B. They can play on team A, but they are registered on team B. And the sources on the OFFICIAL SITE show that. -- FCBjuvenil (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fcbjuvenil: Please open an WP:SPI. ST47 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With evidence linking this account to previous confirmed socks, such as diffs. ST47 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47 Are you serious? --HSV1887 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HSV1887: To be clear, he says you're a sockpuppet, I'm not convinced, and therefore I am asking him to file a report through the appropriate channels with actual evidence. There's nothing that you (HSV1887) need to do until he does so. ST47 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.175.90.48 -- FCBjuvenil (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Sockpuppet User:GARY_809 and User:AH999: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.146.28.31 Accont offical website: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players Peña, Pérez and Fati was not the first team. -- FCBjuvenil (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcbjuvenil (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Fcbjuvenil: I am so unimpressed with the edit warring and the general conduct here. You have a citation, the other guy has a different citation that supports his version. If you're claiming that it is sockpuppetry, then I have already explained what you have to do. Otherwise you must give WP:DR a very thorough read before your next revert, or you will receive a block. ST47 (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fcbjuvenil: Also your username is Fcbjuvenil, not FCBjuvenil. It is case sensitive. Please fix your signature in your user preferences, and remember to sign your comments. ST47 (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But did you look at the source? https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players Will leave the version of a Sockpuppet? Fcbjuvenil (talk. Please, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.146.28.31

Did you look at the link that HSV1887 posted? If you want to make a report about sockpuppets, do so at WP:SPI (with evidence including diffs). If you want to start a discussion about the content dispute you are involved in, then do so on one of the talk pages and start an WP:RFC about it. This isn't the place for either, I don't have enough evidence to make a decision about sockpuppets, and I don't know enough about spanish football to give input on the content dispute. ST47 (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please why are you guys trying to tear down a persons wikipedia page that has been here for almost 5 to 6y years? Someone from online who is an admin literally didn't agree with his comment on social media and decided to come here and delete his wikipedia profile? Does that really deserve to be deleted?

Timestamp for archive bot. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: The article for Rozonda Thomas keeps being constantly vandalized by the same person. Can you please protect this article.Catfurball (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be much vandalism. I only see two events in the recent history. If the issue continues, you can report it to WP:RFPP to request protection. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47 and good aftermoon. I was hoping you could help show me how I can be reported two edit wareing vandals on an Wikipedia article, thank you. - Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100d:b149:83c5:9c34:69e3:23:c838 (talk • contribs)

WP:AN3 if they have violated WP:3RR, WP:AIV if they are performing vandalism. ST47 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. I appreciate greatly your helps in this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100d:b149:83c5:9c34:69e3:23:c838 (talk • contribs)

Hello. Thank you. Hopefully one was left with the other editor as well. If so, I believe he should be blocked at this point because he just changed it again without resolving it on the talk page. I appreciate your time and effort. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: Yes. But don't take this as permission to revert further yourself. You are just as far past the WP:3RR line as the other guy. Find a consensus on the talk page as per WP:DR and then implement that consensus. ST47 (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up but I already understood that. Thank you again. Also I don't know if you care about the section being discussed but if you do please chime in. Have a good one. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did your close answer my question that never got an answer, that the current article was not a copy-paste of any of the 2014, 2015, or 2019 articles? Someone said earlier that an admin (the nominator) had confirmed that it was not the same article as the 2014 version, but I asked about the January 2019 version, and never got an answer. I guess by your saying in the close that there is no valid policy rationale to speedy delete the article that that was an answer to my question? If so, I would encourage you to say so more directly in the future, since you kinda implied that you only thought there was no speedy delete rationale because no one had speedy deleted the article in two weeks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: No, it is not a copy paste of any of the previous versions of Vani Bhojan or Vani bhojan. The 2019 version in particular was nothing more than a single sentence intro, a malformed infobox, and some maintenance templates. The first version of the present incarnation of the article sure seems like it was copied from somewhere, since it came with dated maintenance templates, but I can't see anywhere it was verbatim copied from. ST47 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that clears that up. Thanks! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This module is no longer used on many pages. It no longer needs to be template-protected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I'll undo the protection. ST47 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

Would you be willing to reopen the above AfD discussion? There's some unanswered questions I'm hoping to have answered. I think the keep votes just saying "per Djsasso" are weak. More importantly, I've started a discussion at WT:NSPORTS#Notability of Roller Hockey International players. I started that discussion a little before you closed the AfD discussion. I'm hoping to get more opinions about whether or not RHI players should be considered automatically notable. I posted a notice at the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clarke (ice hockey) and you can copy and paste it if you choose to reopen this AfD. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Papaursa! I hope the discussion at WT:NSPORTS is fruitful. However, since that discussion hasn't really even begun yet, wouldn't it be better to let that discussion run its course, make any necessary changes to WP:NSPORTS as a result, and then open a new AfD or series of AfDs as needed? If there is a desire to change the subject notability guideline to incorporate information about inline hockey or at least to clarify the status of RHI, I'd rather let that run its course at WT:NSPORTS than have it split across multiple venues. Normally today's "keep" result would preclude the same article from being brought to AfD very soon after, but if the discussion at WT:NSPORTS were to result in a relevant change, that a new AfD to re-evaluate these articles in light of the new guideline would be allowed. ST47 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that letting the discussion run another week, given that it hadn't been relisted even once, was better than starting another AfD on the same topic in a week. At worst, it confirms the notability of RHI players consistently--especially since I see there's still another AfD on the same topic (making 3). I'm hoping that it might also lead to answers of the questions I asked at the AfD that the keep voters didn't bother to respond to. My track record at AfDs is pretty good, so I don't usually misread notability so badly--although I said I'd be willing to change if those voting keep could show me that RHI implies notability, or the players competed at the world championships, or significant independent coverage could be shown. None of those things happened--and since you closed the AfD, it's unlikely I'll get any responses. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to decline to relist. Based on how quiet WT:NSPORTS is, it might take some time to draft a guideline specific to inline hockey, and I'm not inclined to leave AfD tags on articles while we wait for that to happen. I did update the AfD closing statement to link to the NSPORTS discussion, to help prevent a future AfD from being speedy closed. If you're finding that you aren't getting any answers on WT:NSPORTS after another day or two, maybe you could write up a draft of what you think the guideline should say, and list it as an WP:RFC? ST47 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like there's a clear consensus at WP:NSPORT that playing in the RHI does not show notability. What do you think? Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does look like there's some agreement there. Do you intend to update WP:NSPORTS with a roller hockey section that reflects this? ST47 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I think the consensus is that for a minor/fringe sport like this, competitors need to meet WP:GNG. I get the feeling that creating an SNG for inline roller hockey is not what people wanted. However, I will create a new AfD for Jason Clark. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In two accounts he calls me per "Spanish" user. see User:Generic515 and User:Voche537 while he had a lock on one of his accounts, he used another to keep vandalizing.--BrugesFR (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did the same thing again today. [1] --BrugesFR (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrugesFR: Thank you for the information. I have blocked both accounts and filed a report for tracking purposes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Generic515. If it happens again, you can let me know or report to WP:SPI. ST47 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I do. Thanks.--BrugesFR (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I quite suspect the new accounts User:JkMastru and User:GrandLucky it's the same user of User:Generic515 and User:Voche537. He vandalizes the same articles of the same way he did on those accounts. [2] [3] Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New editor of to a bad start--BrugesFR (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the checkusers have already blocked both. ST47 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purely curiosity here: why was the block on A4516416 for their WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR violation a 31-hour block? Seems kind of random! — MarkH21 (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habit, mostly. It's a lot of people's "default" block length, for anything that doesn't need to be longer. I'm sure there is a backstory, I don't know what it is, but somehow it even made it into Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking. (Although, that does say that edit warring blocks are usually 24...but doesn't give an explanation either way!) ST47 (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I've never read the admin guide - thanks for the link! I guess most of the blocks that I've seen are either 24 hours (pretty much all for edit-warring), long-term (72 hours or longer) follow-up blocks, or indefinite.
A quick dig around showed that it was the next-smallest duration from the pull-down menu after 24 hours and that was the case since 2005 when it was temporarily changed to 36 hours. The oldest explanation is from October 2005, based on 31 being a prime and not a multiple of 24. So not entirely random, but almost! — MarkH21 (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. One might ask why not 29 hours, if it only has to be a prime. Next time I use my time machine to drop by the 2000s I'll be sure to point that out ;) ST47 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing my discussions concerning US troops in Syria. As an American and prior military I am correcting some of the misconceptions concerning the Turkish offensive in the Syrian border. Thanks, and I'll report you if you remove my posts again. NikeAthena (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NikeAthena: That's fine, but this thread (Syrian Army and Russian will probably bomb the **** out of Turkish Army) isn't relevant to a Wikipedia talk page. See WP:NOTFORUM. Do you have some comment on what should be added or changed with the article, or do you just want to have a conversation about the subject matter? ST47 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

104.218.174.219 is aggressively making baseless accusations (even after several warnings) against me at this article talk page and continues to do so by mischaracterizing a civil past discussion on my talk page. Their ranting is clear and disruptive, and continues despite NPA warnings. Help or input would be greatly appreciated - it’s tiring at this point to respond to this onslaught of blind ranting.

Continued accusation and rants despite two NPA warnings (on top of the two EW warnings from other editors) and repeated requests to stop making baseless accusations should be more than enough to demonstrate a disruptive lack of civility.

Baseless and blatantly false accusations:

1. First rant
   • You are now removing accurate, sourced statements purely as a wilful campaign of misinformation.
   • instead choosing to ignore such, snipe at other users and revert pages to poorly sourced, blatantly false claims. Your bad faith demands to use the talk page as some sort of attempt to block other users from correcting your edits are disgusting.
2. Second rant
   • Your ongoing refusal to actually engage other editors on this site for the past six months is pathetic. You have made no attempt to refute or even acknowledge the multiple, authoritative sources on population figures provided to you and instead continue to force through your edits based on a single source, a flagrant failure of WP:V and in particular the Wikipedia:Tertiary-source fallacy.
   • It should certainly be ridiculous enough for you.
3. Third rant
   • I see you continue to ignore all sources provided to you.
   • You claim that you are engaging in discussion. Where? (WP:IDHT)
   • You do not respond to questions, suggestions or ideas posed to you, instead your responses are little more than simply pasting your claim that we should only use your source across every page.
   • As mentioned...REPEATEDLY...you have had six months on some of these sources and have said nothing; you clearly aren't interested in doing so. That is not building consensus.

Sorry for the bother. I understand if you don't want to get involved or have better things to do... — MarkH21 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I figured this would probably be better suited for a general audience rather than someone I've interacted with recently. I've posted this here at ANI. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: ANI sounds like a good call for this. I see that the page in question is already semi-protected to prevent further reverts, so it's simply a matter of whether we WP:RBI or just skip straight to the I. ST47 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Mz7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• SQL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• ST47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.

The Committee thanks the community and all candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes the following user back to the functionary team:

• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who resigned his CheckUser permission in May 2019, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the committee for return of the permission.

The Committee also thanks Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his long history of contributions to the functionary team. Timotheus Canens voluntarily resigned his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in September 2019.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

Hi ST47, Many thanks for running a CU on him, I didn't bother ticking it because I assumed there weren't any sleepers, Extremely glad you did so many thanks for that :),
Happy blocking/editing :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Davey2010, no problem! ST47 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are a legend! thanks for doing that too!, I emailed someone else inregards to that as was told not to link users with IPs, You're the gift that keeps on giving haha,

Anyway many thanks for your help today it's very much appreciated :),

Enjoy the rest of your evening (or day if you're not in the UK), Thanks , –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Thank you, ST47. I have two requests: first, a block of the most recent vandal, who appears to be a WP:LTA at that article. And the second is a longer period of protection, since they avail themselves of multiple accounts to evade blocks. Thanks again, 2601:188:180:B8E0:6C57:2675:7756:B1CF (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Yes, I'm going to lengthen that protection significantly. Sorry, was in the middle of something else initially and didn't see how far back the vandalism went. ST47 (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite alright, and greatly appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:6C57:2675:7756:B1CF (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST47, hope all is well. You might want to revoke talk page access for Democratic People's Republic of Huddersfield. It is a LTA sockpuppet, see WP:LTA/BMX. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ST47 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted original evidences for this page but you altered it by submitting fake news published in Indiatoday. Do you have any evidence to prove this? Any news published in media can't be guaranteed ass authentic. And if I am submitting actual proof whether it be on dropbox or youtube, you should check the authenticity. You all are spoiling the true nature of wikipedia. This behaviour of yours will make wikipedia a fake site one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omtushyaom (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Omtushyaom: See WP:OR. You are not correct in your description of your "original evidence". News and reliable secondary sources are more reliable than links to original research, incorrect synthesis, and primary sources. ST47 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Please have a view of Medical report conducted by Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi. News published by media are not reliable. The media takes money can publish anything. So depend on real sources other than news papers like books, people... etc thumb— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omtushyaom (talk • contribs)

@Omtushyaom: You're missing the point of WP:PSTS. Primary sources are not generally used on Wikipedia because they are too close to an event to provide a thorough analysis of all the evidence, and are often biased. Using an image of a report fails to take into account many possible sources of error:

1. The report could be fraudulent or altered
2. The person making the report could have been biased
3. The person making the report could have made an error
4. The report could be correct, but be irrelevant because the assault left no physical signs of assault
5. The report could be correct, but be irrelevant because the signs of assault healed prior to the examination

Primary sources can be biased, they can be incomplete, they can be contradicted by stronger evidence or by a larger body of evidence. We rely on secondary sources to weigh the evidence and provide reliable and unbiased reporting. The media reporting, which would have been based on many pieces of evidence, cannot simply be deleted in favor of a single piece of evidence of doubtful reliability, accuracy, and relevance. ST47 (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the unsourced material and semi-protecting the page. I hope this will put an end to this situation. I'm sorry if I was being disruptive in any way, I'm not sure if I was violating the edit warring rules, I had just removed unsourced material that I noticed was added by a blocked user, then out of nowhere this other IP comes along and keeps adding it back without a reason. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just got messages on my talk page from [4] and [5]. They admitted they're the same person who operated the IP you blocked. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, User:zzuuzz has already blocked them. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stevanpesic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and where the US Trademark Office in Washington D.C. shows that the Trademark was not renewed (hence expired), is an incorrect use of your editing privileges.  If you are not a Trademark attorney you should not have deleted the image on the Clan MacTavish wiki, nor should you have suggested that the difference between trademarking and copyrighting that I provided was incorrect. The Clan MacTavish is a 501(c)3 CORPORATION in the USA, and its crest badge was the TRADEMARKED CORPORATE image. It is no longer trademarked. Hence under USA LAW it cannot be copyrighted. I have the image artist's permission to use the image on WIKIPEDIA. Please explain how you think you understand US Law, in this case, as it would be most appreciated.

I have provided you the links WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NONFREE at your talkpage to review. ST47 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These do not address this situation whatsoever. WIKI's understanding of US law is flawed in this instance. An IMAGE that was TRADEMARKED previously and NEVER under copyright, and that has existed since 1793 CANNOT be copyrighted in the USA...PERIOD! You are certainly not an attorney when you revert to citing to the flawed wiki explanation. I am a registered AA. I know the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlan 1796 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC) This situation is tending toward the ridiculous.[reply]

The artwork was done by a person known personally to me ST47 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the artwork was done by a person known to me personlly, it was done as a gratis work for the currect Chief of Clan MacTavish, and I have his permission to post it here, which I stated plainly and clearly, and for which I originally gave his name! The image has actually existed since 1793, is over 100 years old, and from SCOTLAND, recorded in the Record Books at the Court of the Lord Lyon, in Edinburgh, Scotland. I cannot for the life of me figure out why you keep deleting an historical image. I can provide an image that I did the artwork for, if that would make you happier. But this is still ridiculous. Who monitors the admins here for overreach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlan 1796 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, that person holds the copyright on the image, and we'd need some sort of reasonable evidence that they had agreed to license it under whatever license you're claiming. ST47 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

````Lachlan 1793 IT WAS NEVER COPYRIGHTED...what part of NEVER does not ring a bell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlan 1796 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC) In order for any work to actually hold a copyright, the work must be formally copyrighted with the Copyright office in the nation where it was authored. Nations' laws determine if the author or artist may authorize it to be used or not used freely. Since there is NO copyright in existence in the USA, it is FREE TO USE PUBLICLY...this is where WP copyright is flawed!!!! And since the actual descriptive image is well over 100 years, there is still no copyright. WIKIPEDIA does not know or understand the law, and that is quite obvious.[reply]

That's super wrong. ST47 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Would it be possible to throw a semi-protection on my talk page? Looks like sockpuppets getting to it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LuK3, Looks like Eagles247 got it. SQL<sup>Query me!</sup> 23:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it wasn't a speedy deletion but trying to sort out a disruptive edit from a sockpuppet; which this looks EXTREMELY similar to, down to the use of english and content. So I suspect that FFA-P-16 might have resurfaced in another sockpuppet skin. See:Talk:Learjet 23#Merge proposal--Petebutt (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• JeBonSer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Basilvera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peleswift (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Ban evasion of recently blocked user. User:JeBonSer has argued that others are impersonating him. Since you are the admin who blocked User:Peleswift I'm letting you know. I had blocked the other one, Basilvera in the belief it was JeBonSer evading his block. Unsure how I can tell if this was a joe-job. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Well, there isn't really any way to prove a negative. I ran the checkuser again (I had checked all three accounts last week when blocking Peleswift) and it's all  Inconclusive/ Unrelated. Whether that is because JeBonSer is using proxies or because groups who perpetrate [them] are using proxies, no way to be sure. I certainly don't see what motivation anyone would have to try to frame JeBonSer for socking here... But the block has been served, so if JeBonSer wants to claim that it wasn't them, we can move on and re-evaluate if it comes up again. ST47 (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've already been involved with this editor I thought I'd bring this straight here. As you may remember, MegaGoat wanted his other account Megagoated deleted and said he would be using MegaGoat. He has now created MegaGoatMobile and has been editing User talk:TheRealVisser for some reason. TheRealVisser is a new account and has only made some unconstructive edits on Lesley Visser.[6] I don't know if MegaGoat is TheRealVisser but it's something that needs to be looked at. but isn't really doing any serious editing, mainly just his user page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST47, would it be possible to revoke talk page access for Supreme Kim Jong-Un Khan? TIA. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Done. ST47 (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened upon this virile post by them, which makes it clear to me that his "promise" at AN/EW to not edit war on my user talk was a mere 'Get out of jail free' card to escape immediate sanctions. The irony in them labelling myself 'unhinged' while, in the same breath, making an unhinged personal attack, is worth mentioning.

If you are wondering, I decided to refrain from posting a warning template on their user talk, as I assume from their editing tenure that they know better. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo: I've blocked the user for 31 hours for their personal attacks/harassment. I'd really recommend that the two of you try to avoid each other. Your own comment at HorseEyeJack's talk page wasn't likely to have any effect other than escalating the situation, and the next step here is likely to be interaction bans on one or more editors. ST47 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response. I will admit that I was taken aback at HorseEyeJack's poisoning-the-well interjection at a content dispute, which is why, with clouded judgment, I proceeded to open that "Harassment thread" on their user talk. Probably a case of beating the horse (dead or not) in the same manner and expecting an improvement in behavior. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I was about to undo unsourced and uncited additions to the article, no edit warring there at all - also blocking the page is quite an overreaction. These things happen all the time. Also you blocked the page with the destination chart severely damaged. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.118.246 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up - after seeing your post on the above user's talk page (had it on my watchlist from a previous incident), I'm mulling over whether to take it to SPI. I'm pretty confident that there's some kind of connection between Tom, Senshi_Jemuzu, Mattpao2023, and an IP editor from Waverly College - Tom, Matt, and the IP are all very interested in Waverly College and were editing around the same time, Tom created slightly-insulting userpages for Senshi and Matt, Tom found Senshi's edits surprisingly quickly for a new editor, and now we've got Tom getting autoblocked for being on the same IP range as Senshi. I'm not sure about whether to take it to SPI, though, because a) I suspect that this is multiple people editing from a school IP rather than one person, and b) the activity overlap was over a month ago, so it's not an urgent problem. What do you think - leave it alone or write up an SPI? creffett (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Creffett: You're right about it being a school IP - at least, the one that triggered the autoblock is. TomD55555 must have access to at least one other IP, since they made edits earlier today without triggering the autoblock. I haven't looked at Mattpao2023 until just now, but based on how they were overlapping on Waverley_College it does look a lot like he and Tom are two separate people, I don't think an SPI would turn anything up. ST47 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---